Install the Genuine Windows Validation Component



Vickie
07-09-2005, 11:38 PM
I was wondering just what happens if I decide to run the "Install the
Genuine Windows Validation Component" ActiveX?

I was going to download the MS AntiSpyware Beta and the Validation
thing came up. I selected Yes, but when the download box appeared I
closed it to look at the sample screen shots behind it. They showed a
little bar underneath the IE browser address bar which said "This site
might require the following ActiveX control: 'Windows genuine
Advantage". The procedure says I would right-click this bar to install
the ActiveX.

I don't mind running a quick little program that will check my valid
version of XP, but I don't want some new bar permanently in IE.

Is this something that just runs once and that's it, or is it needed
continuously or repeatedly?

Is it causing problems?

Is this something I'll eventually have to run?

Thank you-
Vickie

Carey Frisch [MVP]
07-09-2005, 11:38 PM
It installs a small (4k) ActiveX control called "Microsoft PID Sniffer".
It does not create a new Toolbar. When Microsoft releases the new
version of Windows Update, it will be installed or one will not be
able to obtain updates, especially those who have illegal versions
of Microsoft Windows installed.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Vickie" wrote:

| I was wondering just what happens if I decide to run the "Install the
| Genuine Windows Validation Component" ActiveX?
|
| I was going to download the MS AntiSpyware Beta and the Validation
| thing came up. I selected Yes, but when the download box appeared I
| closed it to look at the sample screen shots behind it. They showed a
| little bar underneath the IE browser address bar which said "This site
| might require the following ActiveX control: 'Windows genuine
| Advantage". The procedure says I would right-click this bar to install
| the ActiveX.
|
| I don't mind running a quick little program that will check my valid
| version of XP, but I don't want some new bar permanently in IE.
|
| Is this something that just runs once and that's it, or is it needed
| continuously or repeatedly?
|
| Is it causing problems?
|
| Is this something I'll eventually have to run?
|
| Thank you-
| Vickie

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:38 PM
Another case of paying customers considered to be pirates until they prove
otherwise.

So, first we have to activate. Then, if we want patches, we have to
validate. What's next?

Alias

"Carey Frisch [MVP]" <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote

> It installs a small (4k) ActiveX control called "Microsoft PID Sniffer".
> It does not create a new Toolbar. When Microsoft releases the new
> version of Windows Update, it will be installed or one will not be
> able to obtain updates, especially those who have illegal versions
> of Microsoft Windows installed.
>
> --
> Carey Frisch
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows XP - Shell/User
> Microsoft Newsgroups
>
> Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
> http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Vickie" wrote:
>
> | I was wondering just what happens if I decide to run the "Install the
> | Genuine Windows Validation Component" ActiveX?
> |
> | I was going to download the MS AntiSpyware Beta and the Validation
> | thing came up. I selected Yes, but when the download box appeared I
> | closed it to look at the sample screen shots behind it. They showed a
> | little bar underneath the IE browser address bar which said "This site
> | might require the following ActiveX control: 'Windows genuine
> | Advantage". The procedure says I would right-click this bar to install
> | the ActiveX.
> |
> | I don't mind running a quick little program that will check my valid
> | version of XP, but I don't want some new bar permanently in IE.
> |
> | Is this something that just runs once and that's it, or is it needed
> | continuously or repeatedly?
> |
> | Is it causing problems?
> |
> | Is this something I'll eventually have to run?
> |
> | Thank you-
> | Vickie
>

Carey Frisch [MVP]
07-09-2005, 11:38 PM
Ever been stopped for a road violation? The first thing the
law enforcement officer checks is the validity of your driver's
license and registration. No big deal for law-abiding folks!

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Alias" wrote:

| Another case of paying customers considered to be pirates until they prove
| otherwise.
|
| So, first we have to activate. Then, if we want patches, we have to
| validate. What's next?
|
| Alias

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:38 PM
"Carey Frisch [MVP]" <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote

> Ever been stopped for a road violation?

I haven't owned a car in 15 years and when I did I never got stopped.

> The first thing the
> law enforcement officer checks is the validity of your driver's
> license and registration. No big deal for law-abiding folks!

Um, first, your comparison is lame, very lame. With your "logic" every car
owner will have to be checked but, as you point out, it only happens when
there is a "road violation". How is a computer user who paid for his or her
software "violating" anything by downloading patches and thus justifying the
validation procedure (according to your lame analogy)?

Second, as activation has messed up, so can validation unless you are saying
that MS will start visiting homes and business to check software.

Third, MS assumes you are guilty of piracy unless you prove otherwise,
something you don't care to address. Why is that? And, if it messes up, it
IS a big deal to the person who paid good money for a product who now has to
jump through hoops to get a patch instead of USING the software he or she
PAID FOR.

Fourth, no pirates will be affected by either activation or validation, only
the paying customers will be affected.

Are you really that logic impaired, Carey?

Alias


>
> --
> Carey Frisch
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows XP - Shell/User
> Microsoft Newsgroups
>
> Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
> http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Alias" wrote:
>
> | Another case of paying customers considered to be pirates until they
> prove
> | otherwise.
> |
> | So, first we have to activate. Then, if we want patches, we have to
> | validate. What's next?
> |
> | Alias
>

Carey Frisch [MVP]
07-09-2005, 11:38 PM
Q: "MS assumes you are guilty of piracy unless you prove otherwise,
something you don't care to address."

A: False assumption. MSFT is only interested in making sure valid
licensing is in effect on one's computer. Microsoft software is licensed
to you, not sold. Your right to use the license is spelled out in the EULA
both in the Product and with future updates.

Q: "Are you really that logic impaired, Carey?"

A: Yes, when it comes to irrational logic espoused by those who
make-up silly statements!

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Alias" wrote:

| Um, first, your comparison is lame, very lame. With your "logic" every car
| owner will have to be checked but, as you point out, it only happens when
| there is a "road violation". How is a computer user who paid for his or her
| software "violating" anything by downloading patches and thus justifying the
| validation procedure (according to your lame analogy)?
|
| Second, as activation has messed up, so can validation unless you are saying
| that MS will start visiting homes and business to check software.
|
| Third, MS assumes you are guilty of piracy unless you prove otherwise,
| something you don't care to address. Why is that? And, if it messes up, it
| IS a big deal to the person who paid good money for a product who now has to
| jump through hoops to get a patch instead of USING the software he or she
| PAID FOR.
|
| Fourth, no pirates will be affected by either activation or validation, only
| the paying customers will be affected.
|
| Are you really that logic impaired, Carey?
|
| Alias

HillBillyBuddhist
07-09-2005, 11:38 PM
"Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
news:esYfrygXFHA.1148@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Another case of paying customers considered to be pirates until they prove
> otherwise.
>
> So, first we have to activate. Then, if we want patches, we have to
> validate. What's next?
>
> Alias


The most abhorrent practice of all of course is the way Microsoft sends it's
people out to put a gun to your head and force you to use Microsoft
products. ;-) I mean after all there are no other alternatives. What's a
body to do....

--
D

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:38 PM
"Carey Frisch [MVP]" <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:e9gFcIhXFHA.2060@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Q: "MS assumes you are guilty of piracy unless you prove otherwise,
> something you don't care to address."
>
> A: False assumption.

True assumption.

> MSFT is only interested in making sure valid
> licensing is in effect on one's computer.

Same thing.

> Microsoft software is licensed
> to you, not sold.

I paid money for it and got a receipt. I paid for something, didn't I?

> Your right to use the license is spelled out in the EULA
> both in the Product and with future updates.

"make sure licensing is in effect" is different from assuming piracy? Please
explain, I could use a good laugh.
>
> Q: "Are you really that logic impaired, Carey?"
>
> A: Yes, when it comes to irrational logic espoused by those who
> make-up silly statements!

You're the one who doesn't understand logic. Maybe if I go slowly.

I buy the software/licence, whatever you want to call it. First I have to
activate it to prove it is legit even though I just paid for it from a
reputable dealer and have a receipt. Then, if I want patches or downloads I
have to prove it is legit again. Get it yet? Pirates don't have to do any of
the above. Only customers who pay for the license/software or whatever you
want to call it have to jump through hoops to continue using the
license/software or whatever you want to call it. If the activation and/or
validation messes up, the paying customer has to jump through hoops to be
ABLE TO USE THE SOFTWARE/LICENSE HE OR SHE HAS PAID FOR and some idiot on
the phone may decide that he or she doesn't like me and not activate or
validate it.

Ergo, to anyone that is not logic impaired like you, MS assumes you have not
got legit software/license or whatever you want to call it and insists that
the burden of proof is on the buyer.

Why can't you understand this? How can you accept this MS policy as if it
were normal?

Alias
>
> --
> Carey Frisch
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows XP - Shell/User
> Microsoft Newsgroups
>
> Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
> http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Alias" wrote:
>
> | Um, first, your comparison is lame, very lame. With your "logic" every
> car
> | owner will have to be checked but, as you point out, it only happens
> when
> | there is a "road violation". How is a computer user who paid for his or
> her
> | software "violating" anything by downloading patches and thus justifying
> the
> | validation procedure (according to your lame analogy)?
> |
> | Second, as activation has messed up, so can validation unless you are
> saying
> | that MS will start visiting homes and business to check software.
> |
> | Third, MS assumes you are guilty of piracy unless you prove otherwise,
> | something you don't care to address. Why is that? And, if it messes up,
> it
> | IS a big deal to the person who paid good money for a product who now
> has to
> | jump through hoops to get a patch instead of USING the software he or
> she
> | PAID FOR.
> |
> | Fourth, no pirates will be affected by either activation or validation,
> only
> | the paying customers will be affected.
> |
> | Are you really that logic impaired, Carey?
> |
> | Alias
>

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:38 PM
"HillBillyBuddhist" <hillbillybuddhist@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23FgVcjhXFHA.3140@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> "Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
> news:esYfrygXFHA.1148@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> Another case of paying customers considered to be pirates until they
>> prove otherwise.
>>
>> So, first we have to activate. Then, if we want patches, we have to
>> validate. What's next?
>>
>> Alias
>
>
> The most abhorrent practice of all of course is the way Microsoft sends
> it's people out to put a gun to your head and force you to use Microsoft
> products. ;-) I mean after all there are no other alternatives. What's a
> body to do....
>
> --
> D

Beside the point.

Alias

Carey Frisch [MVP]
07-09-2005, 11:38 PM
I have installed/reinstalled Windows XP on many computers.
I have yet to run into a problem with Product Activation,
via the internet or via telephone. Also, I have never had a
problem with Windows Genuine Validation "messing up".

Why do we have building inspectors? To verify compliance!
Why do we have food inspectors? To verify compliance!
Why do we have Homeland Security personnel at airports?

The list goes on and on.....

Roosevelt: "The only thing to fear is....fear itself!"

Ronald Reagan: "Trust....but verify" = peace.

"W": "Trust your instincts" = war, quagmire, lives, uncertainty.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Alias" wrote:

| > Q: "MS assumes you are guilty of piracy unless you prove otherwise,
| > something you don't care to address."
| >
| > A: False assumption.
|
| True assumption.
|
| > MSFT is only interested in making sure valid
| > licensing is in effect on one's computer.
|
| Same thing.
|
| > Microsoft software is licensed
| > to you, not sold.
|
| I paid money for it and got a receipt. I paid for something, didn't I?
|
| > Your right to use the license is spelled out in the EULA
| > both in the Product and with future updates.
|
| "make sure licensing is in effect" is different from assuming piracy? Please
| explain, I could use a good laugh.
| >
| > Q: "Are you really that logic impaired, Carey?"
| >
| > A: Yes, when it comes to irrational logic espoused by those who
| > make-up silly statements!
|
| You're the one who doesn't understand logic. Maybe if I go slowly.
|
| I buy the software/licence, whatever you want to call it. First I have to
| activate it to prove it is legit even though I just paid for it from a
| reputable dealer and have a receipt. Then, if I want patches or downloads I
| have to prove it is legit again. Get it yet? Pirates don't have to do any of
| the above. Only customers who pay for the license/software or whatever you
| want to call it have to jump through hoops to continue using the
| license/software or whatever you want to call it. If the activation and/or
| validation messes up, the paying customer has to jump through hoops to be
| ABLE TO USE THE SOFTWARE/LICENSE HE OR SHE HAS PAID FOR and some idiot on
| the phone may decide that he or she doesn't like me and not activate or
| validate it.
|
| Ergo, to anyone that is not logic impaired like you, MS assumes you have not
| got legit software/license or whatever you want to call it and insists that
| the burden of proof is on the buyer.
|
| Why can't you understand this? How can you accept this MS policy as if it
| were normal?
|
| Alias

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:38 PM
"Carey Frisch [MVP]" <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote

>I have installed/reinstalled Windows XP on many computers.
> I have yet to run into a problem with Product Activation,
> via the internet or via telephone. Also, I have never had a
> problem with Windows Genuine Validation "messing up".
>
> Why do we have building inspectors? To verify compliance!

Not building anything. Just want to use what I legitimately paid for and see
no reason to have to prove it.

> Why do we have food inspectors? To verify compliance!

Not eating anything, nor do I server food to anyone.

> Why do we have Homeland Security personnel at airports?

I'm not flying anywhere, nor have I bout an airport.
>
> The list goes on and on.....

Yes, I am sure you've got some more lame analogies but so what?
>
> Roosevelt: "The only thing to fear is....fear itself!"

Irrevelant.
>
> Ronald Reagan: "Trust....but verify" = peace.

I am not a war with anyone or in danger of not having peace.
>
> "W": "Trust your instincts" = war, quagmire, lives, uncertainty.
>
> --
> Carey Frisch
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows XP - Shell/User
> Microsoft Newsgroups

Nonetheless, MS assumes you don't have legit software/licence or whatever
you want to call it and makes you prove it TWICE. The fact that you have had
no problems with the minuscule amount XPs you've worked with does not mean
that problems haven't happened or that the won't continue to happen. It's an
insult and doesn't stop piracy or "casual copying" one iota. ALL it does is
insult the paying customer and generate bad PR for MS. It may affect MS'
bottom line, though, because what would have been a paying customer may very
well go for a pirated copy just to avoid activation, validation and being
insulted by MS and people like YOU.

Alias
>
> Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
> http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Alias" wrote:
>
> | > Q: "MS assumes you are guilty of piracy unless you prove otherwise,
> | > something you don't care to address."
> | >
> | > A: False assumption.
> |
> | True assumption.
> |
> | > MSFT is only interested in making sure valid
> | > licensing is in effect on one's computer.
> |
> | Same thing.
> |
> | > Microsoft software is licensed
> | > to you, not sold.
> |
> | I paid money for it and got a receipt. I paid for something, didn't I?
> |
> | > Your right to use the license is spelled out in the EULA
> | > both in the Product and with future updates.
> |
> | "make sure licensing is in effect" is different from assuming piracy?
> Please
> | explain, I could use a good laugh.
> | >
> | > Q: "Are you really that logic impaired, Carey?"
> | >
> | > A: Yes, when it comes to irrational logic espoused by those who
> | > make-up silly statements!
> |
> | You're the one who doesn't understand logic. Maybe if I go slowly.
> |
> | I buy the software/licence, whatever you want to call it. First I have
> to
> | activate it to prove it is legit even though I just paid for it from a
> | reputable dealer and have a receipt. Then, if I want patches or
> downloads I
> | have to prove it is legit again. Get it yet? Pirates don't have to do
> any of
> | the above. Only customers who pay for the license/software or whatever
> you
> | want to call it have to jump through hoops to continue using the
> | license/software or whatever you want to call it. If the activation
> and/or
> | validation messes up, the paying customer has to jump through hoops to
> be
> | ABLE TO USE THE SOFTWARE/LICENSE HE OR SHE HAS PAID FOR and some idiot
> on
> | the phone may decide that he or she doesn't like me and not activate or
> | validate it.
> |
> | Ergo, to anyone that is not logic impaired like you, MS assumes you have
> not
> | got legit software/license or whatever you want to call it and insists
> that
> | the burden of proof is on the buyer.
> |
> | Why can't you understand this? How can you accept this MS policy as if
> it
> | were normal?
> |
> | Alias
>

Carey Frisch [MVP]
07-09-2005, 11:38 PM
Q: "...because what would have been a paying customer may very
well go for a pirated copy just to avoid activation, validation and being
insulted by MS and people like YOU."

A: Yes, the jails and prisons are filled with criminals that stopped paying
for things and decided to steal!

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Alias" wrote:


| > Why do we have building inspectors? To verify compliance!
|
| Not building anything. Just want to use what I legitimately paid for and see
| no reason to have to prove it.
|
| > Why do we have food inspectors? To verify compliance!
|
| Not eating anything, nor do I server food to anyone.
|
| > Why do we have Homeland Security personnel at airports?
|
| I'm not flying anywhere, nor have I bout an airport.
| >
| > The list goes on and on.....
|
| Yes, I am sure you've got some more lame analogies but so what?
| >
| > Roosevelt: "The only thing to fear is....fear itself!"
|
| Irrevelant.
| >
| > Ronald Reagan: "Trust....but verify" = peace.
|
| I am not a war with anyone or in danger of not having peace.
| >
| > "W": "Trust your instincts" = war, quagmire, lives, uncertainty.
| >
| > --
| > Carey Frisch
| > Microsoft MVP
| > Windows XP - Shell/User
| > Microsoft Newsgroups
|
| Nonetheless, MS assumes you don't have legit software/licence or whatever
| you want to call it and makes you prove it TWICE. The fact that you have had
| no problems with the minuscule amount XPs you've worked with does not mean
| that problems haven't happened or that the won't continue to happen. It's an
| insult and doesn't stop piracy or "casual copying" one iota. ALL it does is
| insult the paying customer and generate bad PR for MS. It may affect MS'
| bottom line, though, because what would have been a paying customer may very
| well go for a pirated copy just to avoid activation, validation and being
| insulted by MS and people like YOU.
|
| Alias

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:38 PM
"Carey Frisch [MVP]" <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23ybMl6hXFHA.3176@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Q: "...because what would have been a paying customer may very
> well go for a pirated copy just to avoid activation, validation and
> being
> insulted by MS and people like YOU."
>
> A: Yes, the jails and prisons are filled with criminals that stopped
> paying
> for things and decided to steal!

Fact: Copyright infringement, as you have been told many times, is not a
criminal act so get off your high moral horse. You missed the point, btw.

Fact: People who buy MS' software have to prove it twice.

Fact: That's an insult.

Fact: MS assumes you are a pirate until you prove otherwise.

Fact: It's bad PR for MS.

Fact: You're logic impaired.

Alias
>
> --
> Carey Frisch
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows XP - Shell/User
> Microsoft Newsgroups
>
> Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
> http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Alias" wrote:
>
>
> | > Why do we have building inspectors? To verify compliance!
> |
> | Not building anything. Just want to use what I legitimately paid for and
> see
> | no reason to have to prove it.
> |
> | > Why do we have food inspectors? To verify compliance!
> |
> | Not eating anything, nor do I server food to anyone.
> |
> | > Why do we have Homeland Security personnel at airports?
> |
> | I'm not flying anywhere, nor have I bout an airport.
> | >
> | > The list goes on and on.....
> |
> | Yes, I am sure you've got some more lame analogies but so what?
> | >
> | > Roosevelt: "The only thing to fear is....fear itself!"
> |
> | Irrevelant.
> | >
> | > Ronald Reagan: "Trust....but verify" = peace.
> |
> | I am not a war with anyone or in danger of not having peace.
> | >
> | > "W": "Trust your instincts" = war, quagmire, lives, uncertainty.
> | >
> | > --
> | > Carey Frisch
> | > Microsoft MVP
> | > Windows XP - Shell/User
> | > Microsoft Newsgroups
> |
> | Nonetheless, MS assumes you don't have legit software/licence or
> whatever
> | you want to call it and makes you prove it TWICE. The fact that you have
> had
> | no problems with the minuscule amount XPs you've worked with does not
> mean
> | that problems haven't happened or that the won't continue to happen.
> It's an
> | insult and doesn't stop piracy or "casual copying" one iota. ALL it does
> is
> | insult the paying customer and generate bad PR for MS. It may affect MS'
> | bottom line, though, because what would have been a paying customer may
> very
> | well go for a pirated copy just to avoid activation, validation and
> being
> | insulted by MS and people like YOU.
> |
> | Alias
>

Carey Frisch [MVP]
07-09-2005, 11:38 PM
Q: "MS assumes you don't have legit software/license or whatever
you want to call it and makes you prove it TWICE."

A. Its strictly a compliance check and not an assumption that the software
is illegal. Microsoft reserves the right to verify that a legitimate version
of it software is installed. Microsoft owns the software and you own
the right to only use it as spelled out in the licensing agreement you
agreed to before installing it.

P.S. Do you feel insulted when a sales clerk requests to see a picture ID
when using a credit card? Aren't you glad this is done to avoid a
possible fraudulent transaction from occurring that you would have
to deal with if an unauthorized user had possession of your credit card?

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Alias" wrote:

| Nonetheless, MS assumes you don't have legit software/licence or whatever
| you want to call it and makes you prove it TWICE. The fact that you have had
| no problems with the minuscule amount XPs you've worked with does not mean
| that problems haven't happened or that the won't continue to happen. It's an
| insult and doesn't stop piracy or "casual copying" one iota. ALL it does is
| insult the paying customer and generate bad PR for MS. It may affect MS'
| bottom line, though, because what would have been a paying customer may very
| well go for a pirated copy just to avoid activation, validation and being
| insulted by MS and people like YOU.
|
| Alias

HillBillyBuddhist
07-09-2005, 11:38 PM
"Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
news:eoyUwvhXFHA.3732@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
> "HillBillyBuddhist" <hillbillybuddhist@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23FgVcjhXFHA.3140@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> "Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
>> news:esYfrygXFHA.1148@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>> Another case of paying customers considered to be pirates until they
>>> prove otherwise.
>>>
>>> So, first we have to activate. Then, if we want patches, we have to
>>> validate. What's next?
>>>
>>> Alias
>>
>>
>> The most abhorrent practice of all of course is the way Microsoft sends
>> it's people out to put a gun to your head and force you to use Microsoft
>> products. ;-) I mean after all there are no other alternatives. What's a
>> body to do....
>>
>> --
>> D
>
> Beside the point.
>
> Alias

Spot on point.

Was not the "point" of your rant that you think Microsoft should change the
way they things? As long as the market (guess what that's you) supports a
companies business model buy handing them money what possible motivation
would they have to change? If you don't like it vote with your pocketbook
and don't buy or use it.

To continue the automobile analogy your sitting behind the wheel of a Chevy
with a big *GM SUCKS* bumper sticker on the back. It's not only pointless
but frankly a little silly.

Walk across the road and get a Ford. They're even giving some of them away.

--
D

Carey Frisch [MVP]
07-09-2005, 11:38 PM
"Alias" would probably like to own a hybrid-powered vehicle powered
by self-generating methane gas.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"HillBillyBuddhist" wrote:

| Was not the "point" of your rant that you think Microsoft should change the
| way they things? As long as the market (guess what that's you) supports a
| companies business model buy handing them money what possible motivation
| would they have to change? If you don't like it vote with your pocketbook
| and don't buy or use it.
|
| To continue the automobile analogy your sitting behind the wheel of a Chevy
| with a big *GM SUCKS* bumper sticker on the back. It's not only pointless
| but frankly a little silly.
|
| Walk across the road and get a Ford. They're even giving some of them away.
|
| --
| D

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:38 PM
"Carey Frisch [MVP]" <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote

> Q: "MS assumes you don't have legit software/license or whatever
> you want to call it and makes you prove it TWICE."
>
> A. Its strictly a compliance check and not an assumption that the
> software
> is illegal.

Please. A "compliance check" is the same thing. It does assume that it is
not a legitmate copy. If it assumed it was legit, no test would be needed.
You really need to do something about your logic ability. Maybe a course at
your local community college?

> Microsoft reserves the right to verify that a legitimate version

And it assumes that it isn't. And it's ONLY affects PAYING customers!

> of it software is installed. Microsoft owns the software and you own
> the right to only use it as spelled out in the licensing agreement
> you
> agreed to before installing it.

I went into a store. I bought a CD with software on it. I own the CD and
EVERYTHING on it. Any other interpretation is a scam, especially when to
read the EULA (which isn't valid in my country), I have to open it and
thereby forgo any refund if I don't like the agreement.
>
> P.S. Do you feel insulted when a sales clerk requests to see a picture ID
> when using a credit card? Aren't you glad this is done to avoid a
> possible fraudulent transaction from occurring that you would have
> to deal with if an unauthorized user had possession of your credit
> card?

Another lame analogy. I have a receipt, all that's legally required to show
ownership of what I bought. Not only that, I have registered the receipt
with the Spanish goverment for tax purposes. It's an insult. It's a scam.
You're a shill and logic impaired.

Alias
>
> --
> Carey Frisch
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows XP - Shell/User
> Microsoft Newsgroups
>
> Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
> http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Alias" wrote:
>
> | Nonetheless, MS assumes you don't have legit software/licence or
> whatever
> | you want to call it and makes you prove it TWICE. The fact that you have
> had
> | no problems with the minuscule amount XPs you've worked with does not
> mean
> | that problems haven't happened or that the won't continue to happen.
> It's an
> | insult and doesn't stop piracy or "casual copying" one iota. ALL it does
> is
> | insult the paying customer and generate bad PR for MS. It may affect MS'
> | bottom line, though, because what would have been a paying customer may
> very
> | well go for a pirated copy just to avoid activation, validation and
> being
> | insulted by MS and people like YOU.
> |
> | Alias
>

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:38 PM
Assuming again. I don't own a car and never plan to own one. They're
expensive, pollutants, and a pain in the butt when they break down.

Not only that, the most dangerous place you can put your body is in a car,
even more dangerous than Bagdad.

Happy Motoring!

Alias
"Carey Frisch [MVP]" <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:uMZ6DJiXFHA.1384@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "Alias" would probably like to own a hybrid-powered vehicle powered
> by self-generating methane gas.
>
> --
> Carey Frisch
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows XP - Shell/User
> Microsoft Newsgroups
>
> Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
> http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "HillBillyBuddhist" wrote:
>
> | Was not the "point" of your rant that you think Microsoft should change
> the
> | way they things? As long as the market (guess what that's you) supports
> a
> | companies business model buy handing them money what possible motivation
> | would they have to change? If you don't like it vote with your
> pocketbook
> | and don't buy or use it.
> |
> | To continue the automobile analogy your sitting behind the wheel of a
> Chevy
> | with a big *GM SUCKS* bumper sticker on the back. It's not only
> pointless
> | but frankly a little silly.
> |
> | Walk across the road and get a Ford. They're even giving some of them
> away.
> |
> | --
> | D
>

Anando [MS-MVP]
07-09-2005, 11:38 PM
> I buy the software/licence, whatever you want to call it.

Huge difference. You buy a licence to use Windows XP. You DO NOT buy Windows XP. Windows XP as a
piece of software is owned by Microsoft Corporation. How does it make a difference if you are
prompted to install a 4 KB activex by MS to verify your install of XP as genuine ? If you seriously
have a problem with Microsoft's policies, please contact them:

http://support.microsoft.com/contactus/?ws=mscom

Other than that, if you have any technical problems with Windows XP, post them here and we are happy
to help you.

--

Anando
Microsoft MVP- Windows Shell/User
http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
http://www.mvps.org

In memory of Alex Nichol
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexperts/nichol.mspx

Folder customizations
http://newdelhi.sancharnet.in/minku

Protect your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/protect


"Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
news:Oygk0khXFHA.2348@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
> "Carey Frisch [MVP]" <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e9gFcIhXFHA.2060@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> Q: "MS assumes you are guilty of piracy unless you prove otherwise,
>> something you don't care to address."
>>
>> A: False assumption.
>
> True assumption.
>
>> MSFT is only interested in making sure valid
>> licensing is in effect on one's computer.
>
> Same thing.
>
>> Microsoft software is licensed
>> to you, not sold.
>
> I paid money for it and got a receipt. I paid for something, didn't I?
>
>> Your right to use the license is spelled out in the EULA
>> both in the Product and with future updates.
>
> "make sure licensing is in effect" is different from assuming piracy? Please explain, I could use
> a good laugh.
>>
>> Q: "Are you really that logic impaired, Carey?"
>>
>> A: Yes, when it comes to irrational logic espoused by those who
>> make-up silly statements!
>
> You're the one who doesn't understand logic. Maybe if I go slowly.
>
> I buy the software/licence, whatever you want to call it. First I have to activate it to prove it
> is legit even though I just paid for it from a reputable dealer and have a receipt. Then, if I
> want patches or downloads I have to prove it is legit again. Get it yet? Pirates don't have to do
> any of the above. Only customers who pay for the license/software or whatever you want to call it
> have to jump through hoops to continue using the license/software or whatever you want to call it.
> If the activation and/or validation messes up, the paying customer has to jump through hoops to be
> ABLE TO USE THE SOFTWARE/LICENSE HE OR SHE HAS PAID FOR and some idiot on the phone may decide
> that he or she doesn't like me and not activate or validate it.
>
> Ergo, to anyone that is not logic impaired like you, MS assumes you have not got legit
> software/license or whatever you want to call it and insists that the burden of proof is on the
> buyer.
>
> Why can't you understand this? How can you accept this MS policy as if it were normal?
>
> Alias
>>
>> --
>> Carey Frisch
>> Microsoft MVP
>> Windows XP - Shell/User
>> Microsoft Newsgroups
>>
>> Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
>> http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> "Alias" wrote:
>>
>> | Um, first, your comparison is lame, very lame. With your "logic" every car
>> | owner will have to be checked but, as you point out, it only happens when
>> | there is a "road violation". How is a computer user who paid for his or her
>> | software "violating" anything by downloading patches and thus justifying the
>> | validation procedure (according to your lame analogy)?
>> |
>> | Second, as activation has messed up, so can validation unless you are saying
>> | that MS will start visiting homes and business to check software.
>> |
>> | Third, MS assumes you are guilty of piracy unless you prove otherwise,
>> | something you don't care to address. Why is that? And, if it messes up, it
>> | IS a big deal to the person who paid good money for a product who now has to
>> | jump through hoops to get a patch instead of USING the software he or she
>> | PAID FOR.
>> |
>> | Fourth, no pirates will be affected by either activation or validation, only
>> | the paying customers will be affected.
>> |
>> | Are you really that logic impaired, Carey?
>> |
>> | Alias
>>
>
>

Sharon F
07-09-2005, 11:38 PM
On 21 May 2005 06:36:36 -0700, Vickie wrote:

> I don't mind running a quick little program that will check my valid
> version of XP, but I don't want some new bar permanently in IE.

That little bar is an SP2 addition. It only appears when needed and blocks
certain content until you OK or permanently block.

--
Sharon F
MS-MVP ~ Windows Shell/User

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:38 PM
"Anando [MS-MVP]" <anando@mvps.org> wrote

>> I buy the software/licence, whatever you want to call it.
>
> Huge difference.

Huge scam when you can't know that until after you have bought it and opened
it and forgo any refund. 99% of the people who buy software think they are
doing just that, buying software. 99% of those same people don't read the
EULA. MS banks on that. Ergo, a scam.

Contacting MS with the link you provides -- as you well know -- would be
futile. I am posting this because I am angry that MS thinks it has a right
to take up my time to prove that I bought something I bought. If you don't
like what I post, don't reply.

Alias

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:38 PM
Vickie wrote:
> I was wondering just what happens if I decide to run the "Install the
> Genuine Windows Validation Component" ActiveX?
>
> I was going to download the MS AntiSpyware Beta and the Validation
> thing came up. I selected Yes, but when the download box appeared I
> closed it to look at the sample screen shots behind it. They showed a
> little bar underneath the IE browser address bar which said "This site
> might require the following ActiveX control: 'Windows genuine
> Advantage". The procedure says I would right-click this bar to
> install the ActiveX.
>
> I don't mind running a quick little program that will check my valid
> version of XP, but I don't want some new bar permanently in IE.
>
> Is this something that just runs once and that's it, or is it needed
> continuously or repeatedly?
>
> Is it causing problems?
>
> Is this something I'll eventually have to run?
>
> Thank you-
> Vickie

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/info.aspx?na=90&p=&SrcDisplayLang=en&SrcCategoryId=&SrcFamilyId=321cd7a2-6a57-4c57-a8bd-dbf62eda9671&genscs=&u=http%3a%2f%2fdownload.microsoft.com%2fdownload%2f8%2f1%2f5%2f815d2d60-49b5-44dc-ae35-fca2f2c6f0cc%2fMicrosoftAntiSpywareInstall.exe

That's the direct download for MSASW.

There is no need to install totally useless code on your computer, that
is only really good for one thing, effin' up!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:38 PM
Anando [MS-MVP] wrote:
>> I buy the software/licence, whatever you want to call it.
>
> Huge difference. You buy a licence to use Windows XP. You DO NOT buy
> Windows XP. Windows XP as a piece of software is owned by Microsoft
> Corporation.

One. My TV came with a shrinkwrap license, just like Windows XP, so
does that mean I don't own my TV?

Two. MS doesn't own the software, they own the copyright to the
software code!

Three. I OWN MY COPY OF SOFTWARE THAT WAS LEGALLY SOLD TO ME! And
there is no legal precedent that says otherwise, so until MS LEGALLY
proves by the preponderance of the evidence in a court of law that I
don't own the copy of software that was sold to me by the previous
owner, the software retailer, then all MS's shrinkwrap license terms
are, are LEGALLY UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS!

MS's EULA IS NOT A LAW UNTO ITSELF!

> How does it make a difference if you are prompted to
> install a 4 KB activex by MS to verify your install of XP as genuine
> ? If you seriously have a problem with Microsoft's policies, please
> contact them:
> http://support.microsoft.com/contactus/?ws=mscom

Waste your time on debugging totally USELESS code!

> Other than that, if you have any technical problems with Windows XP,
> post them here and we are happy to help you.

LOL! And that is worthless, from the looks of your replies in this
thread, full of half-truths, FUD, and outright lies!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Peter Foldes
07-09-2005, 11:38 PM
Hi Vickie

I hope you got your answer aside from the show <s>

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Email is Disabled


"Vickie" <vittoria2711@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116682596.523801.322450@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> I was wondering just what happens if I decide to run the "Install the
> Genuine Windows Validation Component" ActiveX?
>
> I was going to download the MS AntiSpyware Beta and the Validation
> thing came up. I selected Yes, but when the download box appeared I
> closed it to look at the sample screen shots behind it. They showed a
> little bar underneath the IE browser address bar which said "This site
> might require the following ActiveX control: 'Windows genuine
>

NoStop
07-09-2005, 11:39 PM
kurttrail wrote:

> Two. MS doesn't own the software, they own the copyright to the
> software code!
>
And the difference is? When is the last time you had a chance to look at M$
source code? And if you could, what would you do with it anyway? It's
copyrighted!!! :-)

Kurt, you're so full of sh*t. Just stop trying to play lawyer.


--
Re: Micro$oft OneCare:
"When a company is run like the mafia why would you not expect them to
progress to charging protection money." NF

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:39 PM
NoStop wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>
>> Two. MS doesn't own the software, they own the copyright to the
>> software code!
>>
> And the difference is?

That MS doesn't own property rights. Copyright law and property rights
are not one in the same.

> When is the last time you had a chance to look
> at M$ source code? And if you could, what would you do with it
> anyway? It's copyrighted!!! :-)

For my own "fair use," I could do what I want with it.

> Kurt, you're so full of sh*t.

LOL! Why? Because I have a better understanding of my rights as a
owner of a copy of software than you do?

> Just stop trying to play lawyer.

I don't play at anything. I share my understanding of how it is. MS
and its sycophants like to FUD people into believing that MS's EULA, and
its interpretation of it, are a law unto itself! Just think about the
implication that could have if it was reality. SCO wouldn't need to
prove anything when it comes to IBM. Do you really want it that SCO's
UNIX Licensing claims against IBM, and by extention Linux, were the
final authority on the matter?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"


Install the Genuine Windows Validation Component